Would you pay extra for UK Terrestrials?

Genghis

Just a quick poll:

Lets face it, we do not have any right to the UK channels. Just because we have had them in one form or another does not mean that Sky must provide them to us, and while many of us cling to the hope that they will go on Sky in the future Sky never actually promised anything of the sort.

To turn the situation around then - what if we think of the UK channels as being 'premium' - both in the sense of 'more than the standard' and in the sense 'I'd pay more for them'.

If Sky had a 'Family Pack Plus' with ALL the UK terrestrials and their digital / radio combinations, how much would you pay for this service?

I would certainly consider paying something extra for the full service, and perhaps if there was a 'commercial case' for this, then there would be more incentive for the broadcasters to come online, and less danger to sky from lost revenues, etc. etc.

Saruman

absolutly not!!

smoke.me.a.kipper

id pay something small. after all, it is about 6 channels and 5/6 radio stations.

dmeehan

i wouldnt mind paying a small premium
i mean we dont pay for a uk tv licence so we should have to pay a *tiny* bit for that (not)
obviously if you can stick a coat hanger on your roof and get them for free then you would be mad to pay for it

but ive always had to pay for them
i grew up with cablelink/ntl so im used to it.

for people living in areas where the signal doesnt reach them they would have no option but to pay someone for it as they have no other choice. do they have to pay for those deflector schemes?

ShaneOC

Any of us who have had Sky for a while will remember getting a letter from Ian Shepherd (the customer marketing director at Sky) telling us that the subscription costs were rising to pay for extra channels such as BBC1NI and BBC2NI. Now the more cynical of us will say that the price increase was to make a couple of extra cents for Sky before,during and after the Euro changeover.

Whatever the actual reason, Sky have told us that we are paying more money so that they can get us more channels. They must have forgotton this.

Saruman

You hit the button on the nose ShaneOC.. hence my reply saying absolutly not.. i just could not be arsed typing it into a thread that has been going around in other threads for months!

Mountjoy Mugger

Not a blinkin chance - speaking for my mother here as I'm now with NTL.

Is it not the case that you must at least subscribe to the Family Pack with Sky here in ROI to avail of geting BBC1 and BBC2 whereas in the UK you get it free to air (as license payers, presumably).

As we already are paying a premium for BBC, are we now going to pay *another* premium for UTV!!?? If it came with ITV2 and the option of ITV Sport Select, maybe, but a very big maybe...

In answer to the question and because this option is not on the poll:
Yes I would pay more for the extra BBC Channels.
Nobody should pay more for ITV/Ch4 as they will benefit from the extra advertising revenue in ROI.

If you pay extra for ITV and Channel 4 in ROI you are letting those who are dragging their feet on the issue win.
It should be in commercial channels interests to increase their potential audience.

Who owns Granada plus?? and how come we have that channel???????

Who cleared the rights very quickly there??? Even on the old Sky analogue service....:rolleyes: I think Granada should put Irish advertising on it and see who that would p**s off...:D
Even though it's audience is so small.

But that means it's not a popular channel and it seems to be Sky's policy to put unpopular channels in the mix before the popular ones-in the mistaken belief that it will safeguard the makers of such gems as Kirstys home video's.
mm

Genghis

Originally posted by madman
In answer to the question and because this option is not on the poll:
Yes I would pay more for the extra BBC Channels.
Nobody should pay more for ITV/Ch4 as they will benefit from the extra advertising revenue in ROI.

If you pay extra for ITV and Channel 4 in ROI you are letting those who are dragging their feet on the issue win.
It should be in commercial channels interests to increase their potential audience.

Fair point madman, but I think you could argue against it in many ways. All Sky premium channels carry ads, too - some very heavily. In addition, if you consider the family pack channels, or even the Sky channels they also carry ads and could be considered premuim.

In addition ITV have no obligation or duty to enter the Irish market. But they are a commercial station. If they could sell a product in Ireland I am sure they would. And I am sure there is a market for it.

Has anyone thought of this - the reason they are not on Sky has nothing to do with rights, advertising, etc. but becasue NTL and Chorus pay for the channels and Sky do not?

I am not sure if NTL and Chorus do for sure, but I guess they do (anyone clarify this?)

I would also change the poll, but don't think I can ...

All Sky premium channels carry ads, too - some very heavily.

True-But the crucial difference is that the adds on the premium channels are all English/UK adds, and the movie channel;s do not carry advertisements during programmes.
The audience for the movie channels would be small enough-the majority of Irish subs are probably family pack/sports.

Relative to RTE , TV3 or UTV and even channel four , the popularity of channels such as Bravo,Sci-Fi and even MTV is very low and would probably not merit a sale of Advertising in ROI(heck the advertisers would probably want to be paid themselves to be on some of the channels:D )

Has anyone thought of this - the reason they are not on Sky has nothing to do with rights, advertising, etc. but becasue NTL and Chorus pay for the channels and Sky do not?

Well thats true-what could be more annoying for ITV than to be paid to be carried by NTL in Dublin,yet Sky wanting to be paid by ITV for carriage on their network!

If Sky said ok lets charge a realistically low amount or nothing to ITV-we'd have it in the morning.

What needs to be explained here are the implications of the "exclusivity deal" that cable companies have,and with whom?
Anyone?
mm

_Kaiser_

Unfortunately I don't think its a case of WOULD you pay extra for these channels, more like you WILL pay extra...as ShaneOC said, I too remember the letter from Sky saying the charges were rising to pay for more channels (ie: BBC)...let's face it - when/if ITV, C4 and C5 arrive, the price of the basic pack will go up AGAIN....Im sure the case will be the same when RTE join (or will we get that "free" as we already all pay a license fee? Somehow I doubt it! )

As for ads....how many people REALLY buy anything they see in an ad? Most people buy something based on reviews or word-of-mouth....many will switch to another channel, get up and make a cup of tea/coffee, or if watching something they recorded, just fast-forward to the end of it. (Incidentially I read about a new PVR in the States that automatically skips/cuts the ads and the US Networks are goin crazy! ) The broadcast companies know this, so they have to make up for it somehow right? Hence higher subs.

Personally I could live without RTE/ITV/C4 as I rarely watch them anyway (I think this is a common feeling from posts I've read elsewhere), but it would be NICE to have them on Sky.....Although I think Sky does still represent good value, I have to admit, paying (currently) €51 a month for more-and-more shopping, travel and "special-interest" channels does annoy me from time to time. I would more readily accept this & the increase that (I believe) is sure to come IF it meant that we got FULL access to the same channel line-up as enjoyed by our UK neighbours, rather than the cut-down, filtered one we get now.

The fact of the matter is tho that we don't really have a choice....there is no comparible service available in this country (NTL?...yea right!) and I don't see many people realistically getting rid of Sky altogether over this, so Sky will (as Cablelink/NTL did before them) continue to charge us more for less

DMC

If my Sky subscription went up to allow for the introduction of the BBC channels, I would be very happy. Actually, I would be happy if the BBC was even a stand-alone subscription, a lá FilmFour. As I'm a BBC fan, this would be mighty fine with me.

But, I would'nt like to pay any extra to my sub if it were an extra lifestyle or music channel.

You'll never be charged for less channels.... ( I dont think there was a rebate when Wellbeing and Granada Breeze collaspsed!)

dmeehan

Originally posted by DamoDMC
Wellbeing and Granada Breeze collaspsed!)

so thats what channels are missing...
i noticed that there were two channels gone from the epg but i couldnt figure out which two.
obviously i never watched either as i didnt miss them too much...

Mossy Monk

i wouldn't object to a small addition to the subscription because i am already paying that small addition because of the increase last year. if these channels were offered on a stand-alone basis i certainly would not pay for it. i would get another digibox and FTV card from the UK

Element 4

same as that , unfortunatly Sky have got into the the position of dominance over the last few years , but we put them there and we are to blame for this.

So we are backed into a corner on this one, and untill another digital provider comes along unfortunatly YES I would consider having to a minor increase for the UK FTAs.

carrolls

We did not have much option than to pay the extra money for BBC 1 NI and BBC 2 last Spring